The United Kingdom Supreme Court on February 11 issued a landmark judgment in Emotional Perception AI Limited v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, reshaping how the UK handles software and AI patent claims and aligning its approach with European practice.

In a unanimous decision, the court rejected the Aerotel test after about 20 years of use and adopted the European Patent Office’s (EPO) “any hardware” approach. It held that a claimed invention has the necessary technical character if it involves physical hardware and clarified that this threshold issue is distinct from later assessments of novelty and inventive step.

The case stems from Emotional Perception AI’s application to patent an artificial neural network recommendation system that suggests media files, such as songs or videos, expected to evoke similar emotional responses in users.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) initially refused the application under the computer‑program exclusion. The High Court allowed the company’s appeal, and the Court of Appeal then reinstated the refusal. While the Supreme Court concluded that an artificial neural network is a “program for a computer,” it held that the claims are not excluded from patentability at the invention stage because they involve technical means, namely hardware, which satisfies the “any hardware” test.

The court remitted the case to the UKIPO to apply an intermediate step that identifies which features contribute to technical character before the office examines novelty and inventive step.

Patent lawyers said the ruling could ease the path for AI developers seeking protection in the UK and bolster the country’s appeal for machine learning innovation.

Jonathan Ball, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright in London, called the judgment “a highly significant moment for UK patent law and a major boost for AI innovators.” He said the court’s adoption of the EPO’s G 1/19 “any hardware” approach aligns the UK with European practice and lowers the barrier at the excluded‑subject‑matter stage for AI and software‑based inventions.

“Computer programs ‘as such’ continue to not be patentable,” Ball said. “However, AI and software‑based inventions that claim ‘any hardware’ as part of the invention, like Emotional Perception’s ANN, would not be excluded matter for the purposes of determining patentability.”

He added that the shift could increase predictability for applicants filing across the UK and Europe. He noted that the new framework treats excluded‑matter analysis as an intermediate step before examiners assess novelty and inventive step. “In doing so, it has potentially opened the door to a more modern and innovation‑friendly patent regime, one that is better equipped for the realities of AI development,” he said.

The decision marks the first time the UK’s highest court has ruled on the patentability of an AI‑related invention and is expected to reshape examination practice for computer‑implemented technologies across the sector.

- Cathy Li